|
It follows that we must allow contrariety to Quantity:
whenever we speak of great and small, our notions acknowledge
this contrariety by evolving opposite images, as also when we
refer to many and few; indeed, "few" and "many" call for similar
treatment to "small" and "great."
"Many," predicated of the inhabitants of a house, does duty for
"more": "few" people are said to be in the theatre instead of
"less."
"Many," again, necessarily involves a large numerical plurality.
This plurality can scarcely be a relative; it is simply an
expansion of number, its contrary being a contraction.
The same applies to the continuous [magnitude], the notion of
which entails prolongation to a distant point.
Quantity, then, appears whenever there is a progression from the
unit or the point: if either progression comes to a rapid halt,
we have respectively "few" and "small"; if it goes forward and
does not quickly cease, "many" and "great."
What, we may be asked, is the limit of this progression? What, we
retort, is the limit of beauty, or of heat? Whatever limit you
impose, there is always a "hotter"; yet "hotter" is accounted a
relative, "hot" a pure quality.
In sum, just as there is a Reason-Principle of Beauty, so there
must be a Reason-Principle of greatness, participation in which
makes a thing great, as the Principle of beauty makes it
beautiful.
To judge from these instances, there is contrariety in Quantity.
Place we may neglect as not strictly coming under the category of
Quantity; if it were admitted, "above" could only be a contrary
if there were something in the universe which was "below": as
referring to the partial, the terms "above" and "below" are used
in a purely relative sense, and must go with "right" and "left"
into the category of Relation.
Syllable and discourse are only indirectly quantities or
substrates of Quantity; it is voice that is quantitative: but
voice is a kind of Motion; it must accordingly in any case
[quantity or no quantity] be referred to Motion, as must activity
also.
|
|